Ecocentrism

Looking into personhood for non-human beings in law

Introduction

Historically, humans have put themselves above one another, and the environment. These things are nearly inseparable, and so in our modern age of confronting environmental injustice, we must also begin to look at the rights of non-human beings. Recently, corporations have been given certain rights of individual identity while the original manufacturer, Mother Earth, has yet to receive any rights for existing. Ecosystems were the first providers of necessary means for the health, safety, and well-being of the public but hold relatively no legal power. Granting corporations “personhood” gives them the ability to own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, and exist in perpetuity (PGLS, 2023). Legally, this gives them a one up on natural resources, animal rights, and these things in relation to smaller businesses and individuals. Some natural resources specifically are non-excludable public or “common” goods, but in such a progressive time, we should look further into the proposed and purposeful exclusion of these things, and for what “beings” that includes.

Corporations repeatedly exploit both excludable and non excludable goods, and often pollute them and other surroundings. There is also a deeper issue of creating scarcity where scarcity should not exist, and therefore the marginalization of communities and peoples. Corps existence is legally protected, but a river or a species right to exist is not. This combined with spending power gives corporations a lot of freedom, and little moral restriction. By giving common and/or public goods certain rights, individuals are also granted certain rights, and given more legal standing against powerful corporations. When common goods are jeopardized certain people's livelihoods are also put in danger.

The issue then, is the rights of the environment. Given that corporations have rights, and the exploitation of flora and fauna, it seems necessary to give the environment and its components certain rights in order to guarantee the continuation of life, both ours and theirs. While I do understand the importance of framing how these things are important to humans, I wonder if there is some way in the law to merge these two things or ideas, because nature and people are not separate and should not be so clearly separated in law. 

Cases in the United States that pursue granting the right of personhood to a non-human thing have not yet passed. These court cases, however, have helped environmentalist groups sort out the necessary legal wording to protect non-humans and humans alike. The wording of environmental rights bills is essential to them eventually having the ability to pass, or being able to be voted on at all, and I will delve into this journey. I will then look into possible alternatives to granting some degree of personhood to per say a river. This may include the giving back of land, stricter regulations or less rights for corporations, and more consideration of public opinion in deciding law and policy. First I will give some scientific context for this type of protection, and the specificity that would be required in such a drastic legal decision such as granting a river certain unalienable rights. 

Scientific Context

Since the 1970s wealthy countries have quickly approached “Earth Overshoot Day” each year. On this day, the world has consumed all of the natural resources that will be able to naturally regenerate, and begins digging into the Earth’s reserves (Global Footprint Network, 2023). In 2021, each American requires 39,000 pounds of fossil fuels and minerals to maintain their current standard of living (Venditti, 2023). For comparison, east Asian countries typically require about half of these energy demands (Shakya, 2022). Since 1988, 100 corporations have been responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions (Reed, 2017). Concurrently, they are taking or polluting resources not only from the Earth, but from communities that rely on those resources for their livelihoods (often water and air). Those in oil and gas, corporations like Coca-Cola, Nestle, and Purdue, all repeatedly damage and pollute water supplies. Coca-Cola and other plastic-bottle drink companies also exploit ground water, which affects water supplies elsewhere. All the while they are among the biggest plastic polluters in the world and have their minds set on endless growth. They specifically seek out natural areas that are untouched by anyone – except maybe the locals – because it means that these places have not been mined yet. Corporations have repeatedly exploited vulnerable natural areas and people. When I say this, I am talking more so about other countries, though it has happened here with the fight for the Keystone XL pipeline and other cases. Furthermore, toxic-spewing establishments and waste sites have been historically and strategically placed in less privileged areas. Poisoning minority communities, and their environment, giving them even less access to [healthy] green space, an issue they already face among others embedded in structural racism and environmental injustice. By more strictly protecting natural areas, nature’s benefits can be more evenly distributed to the public (Rowland, 2020).

The Flint water crisis is the horribly perfect example of a conglomeration of all of these issues. For decades, industrial dumping from General Motors – who also employed tens of thousands of Flint employees at its height – polluted the Flint river. The people of Flint had to get water from elsewhere, became too poor to afford it, and then were poisoned when a cheap government decision resulted in them drinking the polluted Flint lead water (Columbia University, 2022). Lead causes high blood pressure, reproductive issues, headaches, joint pain, convulsions, behavioral disorders, comas, and even death. It makes people more susceptible to long term health issues and poisoned Flint’s primarily black population (WHO, 2023; Denchak, 2018). Meanwhile, General Motors is currently worth $40.77 billion (Macrotrends, 2023). It would cost $626 million to give the people of Flint clean water, which they went 8 years without, and are still struggling to receive. 

This story is not few and far between. Rather, it seems to be the precedent. However, after decades of trying to save extinct species, and protect pristine natural areas, we still need to do more. The next step towards true sustainability requires a “pro-poor conservation”. “For millions of people, biodiversity is about eating, staying healthy, and finding shelter”  (Kaimowitz, 2007). Unfortunately, this does not align with the ideals of corporations. There may need to be careful choosing of more areas that are limited to certain extraction due to the inherent rights of that area, and that area's people. 

On a less anthropocentric note, biodiversity is also about millions of species eating, tolerating an era of climate change, and maintaining health. Ideally, it is also about these species maintaining a certain quality of life. In its most basic form biodiversity is about survival of the largest and most widely functioning whole. Native species are typically higher in functional diversity, meaning the web of life is overall more complex and therefore also more tolerant. Functional diversity allows for more species to live within healthy populations, and stay intact. The Americas have been blessed with unimaginable diversity, and the U.S. is home to 200,000 different species. And yet, much of this life is resting on the edge of a cliffside, about to fall off into extinction. Currently in the U.S. “34% of plants, 40% of animals are at risk of extinction, and 41% of ecosystems are at risk of range-wide collapse” (NatureServe, 2023). This is a colossal jeopardization of nearly half of the life in America. Loss of ecosystems would cause domino-like collapses, and mass extinction, which scientists have been warning about since realizing the full harmful power of anthropogenic-induced climate change. 

Already, our country has lost an estimated 650 species. This does not begin to account, however, for the culturally ingrained-inhumane treatment of animals nationwide. Alongside this treatment is the repeated taking and exploitation of land, resulting in loss of habitat, which organisms need to survive. Native organisms suffer from land use change, and this – or hunting – has been responsible for most of the threat to species in America. This disregard for life for animals has resulted in miserable lives or death for millions, if not billions, of organisms. Not only has this happened to native animals, but our country has also found a fascination with exotic and/or complex animals, who have the ability to experience different qualities of life and are still treated like dangerous prisoners; whether they be a big cat, a dolphin, an elephant, or even a certain bird. Interestingly, “animal abuse can be a precursor to abuse and violence towards humans and/or a component of domestic violence” (“Animal Abuse”, 2021), and I think the parallels between our treatment of organisms and their environment and our treatment of people is alarming. By making efforts to treat all life with more respect, more life will flourish. Flora, fauna, and natural areas all have a right to healthy and safe existence (Stein, et al, 2018).  

Saving natural areas from pollution and resource extraction give community members health benefits and long term resilience to a variety of issues. Intact environments help with clean water, flooding and/or drought protection, a source of a variety of life forms that may or may not directly help people, but do contribute to ecosystem services. Ecosystem services include proper water cycling/absorption, climate change resilience, clean air, nutrient cycling in soil, and a myriad of other necessities or benefits based on the community. Life “depends on provisioning services, such as food, fuel, timber, and other materials which are provided by a combination of functioning ecosystems”. Pollinators often require native plants, and concurrently native plants require pollinators in order to properly sustain a habitat that functions correctly (EPA, 2023). This type of relationship reappears over and over again in natural ecosystems. Keystone species have drastic effects on their habitats, and often depend on a particular relationship, while many things depend on that relationship. Similarly, humans may be affected by these drastic effects somehow. Whether it is the loss of certain ecosystem service or something more sinister. 

Nearly all Americans rely on natural areas for food and water. By barring these places' abilities to naturally flourish and recover, we are harming multiple trophic levels – nearly every trophic level – and concurrently making life more difficult and unhealthy for millions of people. Ecosystem biodiversity – specifically in the diverse functionality of the ecosystem – also helps pest and disease resistance. This is the case for many environmental benefits, and is why living alongside healthy ecosystems are so important. Native plants are typically vital for this, and therefore also native animals operating within their evolved social structure. However, in our age of climate change, specific functionality may allow for acceptance of specific invaders (but this is another essay). Many indigenous people had and have formed mutualistic relationships with their environment for hundreds of years, and it has proven beneficial for the reasons above. By granting certain rights to important ecosystems, another angle can be taken alongside fights like returning land, clean energy, and the relationship between corporations, natural resources, and the public. 

Background

Animals – and I would argue bodies of water, certain trees, etcetera – deserve rights. Many animals live horribly isolated and painful lives, ripped from their homes. Others are subjected to inhumane conditions, or their homes are completely destroyed. Animals (and plants) are repeatedly looked at as less than, even those that have been proven to be highly aware and socially complex like dolphins, elephants, and others (Marino, 2022). Simpler animals, and functionally complex plants or ecosystems may also be deserving of the right to personhood, but the law has yet to step into that complexity. No non-human has ever been granted rights of personhood by the national U. S. government (though I will talk about exceptions in tribal law), and yet, people, animals, and natural ecosystems are deeply tied to one another. To have “rights of personhood” means to have the right to life, liberty, and (maybe?) the pursuit of happiness (Pellerin, 2016). Under the 14th amendment, the United States Constitution grants personhood to all white men, and eventually, also to African Americans, women, corporations, and (maybe?) fetuses (Spelliscy, 2023). 

The environment is constantly losing legal battles to corporations, farms, and individuals. This is becoming especially problematic when thinking about climate change and the continuous environmental injustices of the United States. On both a local and global scale, decisions in favor of recreation and profit have detrimental effects on long term community health, resilience, and culture. That being said, these decisions are deeply complex, and have many socio-economic implications. Oftentimes, protection of something – specifically waterways or other public “goods/services” (air, soil, etc.) – can help certain groups while harming others. For this reason, certain species and/or natural areas may need to be granted certain rights in order to have a future, especially a healthy and resilient one. People directly tied to these “beings” – rivers, animals, organisms – will often benefit, if not completely rely, on the others' legal right to life and liberty (to varying degrees). While there will undoubtedly be economic blowbacks, the inherent value of these beings (much like a person’s life) warrants this. 

No rulings at the state or national level have granted “beings'' any rights to personhood, but many related cases have gone to court, and some have even passed in local governments but ultimately failed. One of the first major cases related to “beings'' and natural places rights is Sierra Club v. Morton (1972). Sierra Club fought to “give the trees some legal standing” under the Administrative Procedure Act, but was dismissed 4-3 in the Supreme Court (McKeown, 2019) because Sierra Club did not sufficiently show how they would be negatively affected by the defendants’ development of an untouched natural area . However, this helped initiate action in law to protect the environment and encouraged people to sue on the environment's behalf (“Sierra Club v. Morton”). A few years later, tribes were legally given sovereign immunity in a similar way to states, but this in practice has been less evident (Legal Information Institute, 2023). Historically, tribes have used this – with varying degrees of success – to protect their land from extractive practices like mining or drilling for oil. 

In Colorado River Ecosystem v. State of Colorado (2017), the prior filed a lawsuit to guarantee the Colorado River “rights to exist, flourish, regenerate, be restored, and naturally evolve,” but was dismissed. That being said, this legal wording was another helpful step (Fendt, 2021). Three years later a similar case, which almost passed but was ultimately barred by an onslaught of organizations, and individuals, was Drewes Farms Partnership v. City of Toledo (2020). Toledo citizens drafted the LEBOR (Lake Erie Bill of Rights) which gave Lake Erie and its watershed the “rights to exist, flourish…naturally evolve”, and passed it to the city’s charter in a special election. Eventually LEBOR was criticized for its language being not “legal'' enough (441 F. Supp. 3d 551). Terms were not clearly defined, and overall, it was unconstitutional. This makes me particularly interested in the business law aspect that gives corporations rights, and how environmental law could possibly be framed similarly.

Corporations have been granted certain rights since 1809. African Americans and women weren’t given comparable rights for more than 50 years after. Over time, corporations have slowly been granted “nearly every other constitutional protection a corporation could want” (Winkler, 2021). In the same decade that Sierra Club was dismissed (‘72) corporations were legally given the right to spend, at least some, money on political campaigns. Though corporations have not been specifically identified as humans, they enjoy many of the same rights as a person, alongside their ability to alter advertisements, elections, and other powerful social structures. Within the law, when judges have ruled in favor of corporations regarding personhood – which essentially means assigning a “subject of rights” to something – it typically follows certain concepts of legal personhood that may be helpful in granting animals a subject of rights, or other “beings”(Marder, 2023; Montes, 2022).

The Yurok tribe is one hopeful example of successful granting of personhood to Klamath River in northern California. This occurred under tribal law, and is the first known River in North America to be given legal rights of personhood (”Tribe Gives Personhood to Klamath River”, 2019). While this is the first successful enactment of environmental personhood for a river, this concept has lived in indigenous cultures globally for thousands of years. Indigenous peoples protect 80% of the world's biodiversity, despite being only 5% of the population, and in our time of climate change it is imperative that we follow their lead and take their knowledge of the land seriously (”Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ Land Interest is Critical for People and Nature”, 2020).

Alternatives 

Repeatedly, tribal law has been used to protect lands from exploitation by outsiders, and have concurrently protected livelihoods of native people and beings (Schlosser, 2023). Some federally recognized tribes have also been granted federal land, which operates under the law similarly to a state, though it has taken nearly two hundred years to get to this point after decades and decades of intentional land taking and “fractionation” (“Native American Lands: Ownership and Governance”, 2023; TAS, 2023). Recently, land acknowledgements have been a common practice, but then again all non-reservations are still stolen land. By granting tribes the power,  autonomy, and federal standing of a state – whether they own significant amounts of land or not – a much larger debate could be sparked in Congress which more effectively enters environmental personhood into the conversation. The indigenous New Zealand concept of “I am the river, the river is me” (Bennet, 2017; Maori proverb) is reminiscent of other societal issues that have received legislation. Environmental law lies very closely to a variety of other legal issues that already hold precedent – laws of non-violence, laws regarding discrimination, indigenous tribes and land – and so what may be most necessary is proper legal vocabulary, a convinced public, and/or aligned action. 

Perhaps the closest we have gotten to recognizing the rights of a nonhuman being was in the case Manoomin v. Minnesota DNR (D. Minn., 2021). Here the federal court ruled in favor of the sovereign immunity of the White Earth Band, who had recognized the rights of manoomin rice, resulting in them having the ability to block a drilling project that would affect water, and therefore also the ability of the protected wild rice to grow (“Press Release…”, 2022). Other countries, like New Zealand,  have used this concept in order to grant certain beings personhood. There Te Awa Tupua worked with the crown in order to grant the Whanganui River self-ownership. They are quoted saying “I am the River, the River is me” (American Indian Law Journal, 2023; Butler, 2000s). 

Despite the granting of legal rights to rivers in Bangladesh, Columbia, India, and New Zealand, many are kept from flowing, and “denied” other necessities in order for that ecosystem to be and operate with health (O’Donnell, 2020). Thus, alternatives must be evaluated. In practice, this law seems to rarely reap the benefits, and more often causes more separation of land and people. Perhaps the most obvious alternative would be stricter regulations and implementation of existing laws. This could include a less extensive process to consider species as “endangered” and more efforts to protect habitats regardless of their location or economic status. It could also include stricter regulations in the clean water, clean air, oil, and other pollution acts in order to ensure safe and healthy resources for life beyond humans. 

Other countries like Bhutan – who are carbon negative – have specific months where different practices are illegal. These things include regulation or ceasing of burning fires, using certain chemicals, and harvesting of different natural resources. Often, these months correspond with periods of reproduction, or where a decrease in the population of x species would damage the ability of that species to maintain its population and/or health. While these laws typically have deep cultural connotations, they are also rooted in hundreds of years of traditional ecological knowledge. In a much simpler world, we take this traditional knowledge seriously, and abide by its inherent regulations. However, in order for this to occur in America, there would likely need to be a legal declaration and active enforcement afterwards. Examples beyond what stated above could include things reminiscent of rules we already dabble in, such as limited hunting and fishing, or bolder moves like changes in leaf-raking practices. Important larvae grow in leaves, and we often disrupt this reproductive process, and so this is another example of a practice that could be regulated during important months. 

Another legal route for protecting vulnerable “beings” may be found in laws of non-violence, another common eastern concept, and one (finally) more accepted in the west regarding humans and to a limited degree animals. In Bhutan, these include the laws I talked about earlier, such as ceasing of burning fires so as to not cause any harm to insects. These laws were originally practiced out of respect for other beings' lives. Protections that largely acknowledge the fact that humans are “connected to [nature, plants, and animals] in an interdependent way, rather than a dominant one” (Challe, 2021).

Another alternative may be efforts to grant conservatorships for certain “beings”, specifically to indigenous groups that would wish to provide guardianship over these “beings”. Historically, “guardianships” were used to take land from Natives, and may be a way to rightfully return it (Seielstad, 2021). That being said, I do not think that this alternative should rely on indigenous peoples. Our government has committed genocides on their peoples, and historically barred them from the conversation and opportunities that white Americans have often been granted. They should not be held responsible to fix something that is largely not their fault, and has often included their own repression and mistreatment. Therefore, certain reliable interest groups could also be granted conservatorship for – say – a threatened species or a river in order to provide an advocate for that being as it cannot advocate for itself. This alternative is interesting because it could potentially be in legal conflict with my original proposition, as conservatorships essentially strip civil and human rights. Interestingly, the “Rights of Nature Movement” has more often utilized this alternative – the doctrine calls for recognition of the rights of nature to personhood and/or a “‘subject of rights’” – as guardianship seems to be more attainable and well-practiced in law. By “well-practiced” I mean in the sense it has passed, very little action has been reflected in the granting of “beings” personhood.

“Legal personhood attributed to ecosystems has so far been mostly symbolic and it remains unclear how successful these lawsuits can be in gaining adequate, long-term protection of ecosystems” (Challe, 2021). Things more akin to a conservatorship, rather than granting of personhood, may be beneficial when handed over to the right groups. Similarly, expansion of laws regarding “sovereign immunity” may allow for greater control of land within communities who rely on it. While this takes the conversation back into one that is anthropocentric, it still offers a more inclusive and extensive protection of natural areas, and the beings that live within them. It also gives individuals more autonomy and stronger legal holding to make decisions regarding their communities ecosystems. 

Selected Policy

A few things became evident throughout my research: 1) the environment and its “beings” require extensive protection in order to survive mass extinction brought about by capitalism, climate change, and its components 2) the law – and overall understanding of humanities place WITHIN nature – requires a dramatic ideological shift in order for most of the policies I discussed to pass and/or be implemented into practice due to the wests overall disregard for life 3) it is not currently evident that the law is capable of recognizing any non-human beings as having equivalent human or personhood rights given precedent legal standing, and our overall culture 4) granting non-human beings personhood rights may not be the best choice of law within our current system, and may actually lead to less management of these beings. Granting personhood rights would not necessarily protect these beings any better than now, without a legitimate connection to what we are trying to protect. Passion is the driver of genuine change. If certain “beings'' were granted x “rights” it may not mean much if there is not a collective shift towards respecting the inherent right of these beings to exist. This is one reason it may be better to first put efforts into expanding certain laws. American laws have often helped encourage the social acceptance and/or recognition of issues, and by recognizing certain rights of the environment legally, a paradigm shift is more likely. It also allows for more funding to go into these things, which is important given the amount of wasteful government spending elsewhere. Giving this legal priority or precedent would also give it funds, which is unfortunately necessary to most change within our current system to some degree.  References also share the difficulty and limited success of granting beings personhood rights suggesting – to me – that expansion of existing laws may be the best way to take steps towards building a body of laws which recognize certain rights of nature. Some laws that may be able to be expanded to include nonhuman beings are laws of non-violence, regulations (clean air, water, hunting, etc.), and tribal rights. 

Since the advent of certain technologies and global climate change, plants, animals, and their ecosystems have become extremely vulnerable. As discussed earlier, a large percentage of ecosystems are under threat of collapse, and many species in America have substantially dwindled in numbers, despite being vital to their own communities. Plants are inherently vulnerable as a majority have little to no substantial defensive mechanisms. This may be one way to approach protecting them under laws of non-violence. A child is protected from harm under the law, and so, perhaps vulnerable “beings” could be protected in a similar way. Children, mentally/physically impaired peoples, and the elderly all have certain protections because they are deemed vulnerable. Most beings have become vulnerable in an even more devastating way, as their basic needs are taken from them and others are hunted or abused via literal violence or pollution. Unfortunately, again, to consider these things as being both vulnerable and important enough for protection requires a revolutionary collective mind shift but seems more plausible than changing the entire legal vernacular or definition of human/personhood. Beings, however, may be able to be argued to be vulnerable and therefore inherently deserving of protection from “violence”. This violence might include literal destruction and exploitation, which are things children are protected from. Children are also given the rights to a “balanced diet” and – again though these things don’t always happen due to poor parenting or difficult circumstances – that does not mean that allotting something else similar rights will hinder the ability to protect children nor be a waste of time and resources (Guggenheim). Note, adults are not protected in the same way (though I did not look into how they are protected), but am more focused on the specific wording on protection over vulnerable beings, and not what those beings actually are.

In Bhutan, a culture of nonviolence is weaved into the laws. As touched on earlier, there is no burning of forests for a month. Some residents take it even more seriously, and do not burn anything at all for this long, or attempt to refrain from making fire outside for as long as possible. Most of the population is Buddhist, and those who are not are still heavily influenced by the religion as it is ingrained in their lives as much as Christianity is in ours (every U.S. President has been Christian except for two, and they were just different denominations. I could continue with examples: pledge of allegiance, swearing on a bible, etcetera). That being said, they do not burn during a late fall dry month because it is more likely that the fires will burn out of control. Others don’t burn in order to avoid accidentally killing anything, which is seen as taking a life regardless of what type of body that life resides in. Practices less tied to religion that are integrated into the law, besides burning, are also management strategies for grazing, clean shared water, foraging practices, and an extensive network of community forests. Bhutan also had “National parks” where certain areas were barred from people, and others had people living within them. This seemed to aid in the community connecting to and caring about their land, while also providing them renewable access to certain natural resources. While it is important to note these communities, and country, had much less accessibility to technology and money. Yet, they have developed a well working system where most people feel their needs are fulfilled, and natural ecosystems are still flourishing. For this reason, I believe that the United States is capable of adopting certain practices in order to better provide people livelihoods without taking livelihoods from other beings, and in fact aiding these vulnerable communities. This could include more laws to protect our water resources, both above and below ground, and forest resources. When I say resources, I am including being’s need for these things. 

Regulated foraging practices in Bhutan were also set with TEK (traditional ecological knowledge) in mind, and so people are not meant to take more than what the ecosystem can regenerate in a certain time. Generally, these rules are taken seriously and much more legitimate than limits in America, where ridiculous amounts of resources are expended on a regular basis. Interestingly, the most consumption I witnessed in Bhutan was a small Coca-Cola factory. It had maybe 30-40 workers, but had potential to take 265 million gallons of water a day. This was not typical, and they were paid dishonorable wages. Vulnerable beings and communities would benefit from stricter regulations on how much water, vegetation, or any other resource can be taken both within and outside of America. This could look like expansion on Acts that the EPA and other federal agencies already regulate, but I do believe that expansion in the rights of beings is necessary in order for a chance at fixing the problem I originally posed: the rights of the environment and its components ability to live healthily. It may be helpful to expand water or air cleanliness in order to include the most vulnerable beings, whoever they may be. 

It is important to stress the inseparability of vulnerable people and beings. Without the protection of money and/or land, marginalized groups (including animals and plants) receive the worst effects of capitalism and climate change. Among these vulnerable groups are native tribes,  few of which own land in America. Over the past 50 or so years, some tribes have been able to reclaim some of their land via settlement claims. There could be efforts to review past claims, or assist tribes desiring land in obtaining it. Granting more tribes land within their historical home is a representation of the (ex)change that is necessary in both culture and law. Land acknowledgements, as vital as they are, are only a first step. By returning land to indigenous people we recreate structures that we have historically destroyed: tight knit communities, ecosystems, and cultures that are more ecocentric rather than anthropocentric. This means that intrinsic value is given to all the living organisms and nonliving components of ecosystems (Price, 2021; “Research Guides, American Indian Law”). An accompanying step could be taking science and traditional ecological knowledge seriously in determining law, and making that a top priority. This would help many of the policies discussed take place in an effective manner, providing health and sustainable livelihoods for all beings. 

Conclusion 

The concept of rights for “beings” is ancient, and yet,  in the context of environmental injustice and current extinctions, the law has only begun to involve rights of the environment into the conversation. Mostly, when these rights are discussed within America, they are looked at from a purely people perspective, disregarding the other lifeforms and livelihoods that are affected by natural resource use and pollution of public goods. By delving into tribal and international law a wider perspective is brought into play, and this paper aimed to investigate these perspectives as well as existing environmental rights in current American politics. Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, there is very little solid law on protecting the environment, which has led to extensive exploitation of nonhuman beings and human beings alike. 

Exceptions in the U.S. were largely under tribal law, in which there have been several cases of granting rights to nonhuman beings. Outside of the U.S. these concepts are both present in different countries' law, but also in many cultures. However, when personhood rights for beings or a being have been implemented into law, they have not necessarily been successful in protecting beings without the cultural or social push of connected communities behind it. This is why picking a specific policy for America is so difficult. It is a particular challenge to choose a policy that will unite people and be genuinely active in reshaping our treatment of nonhuman beings. While this does not feel like a successful conclusion, this issue will continue to poke American law, and soon enough I truly believe that the rights of nature will enter the mainstream conversation. In our era of climate change it is evident that something must be done. The groups of people – whether it be environmental groups, homesteaders, indigenous people, or others – who have learned or historically known how to live in harmony with the Earth and her “children” must be heard. Focusing on the vulnerability of the environment, and expanding beings’ protections and “rights” within current laws may be a way to implant this idea/practice into a world (Federal law) where it does not yet exist. 

Works Cited

“About Earth Overshoot Day .” Earth Overshoot Day, Global Footprint Network, 7 July 2023, www.overshootday.org/about-earth-overshoot-day/. 

“Animal Abuse.” Animal Abuse | Safe Voices, Safe Voices, 2021, safevoices.org/what-domestic-violence/animal-abuse#:~:text=Animal%20abuse%20can%20be%20a,sadly%20even%20killing%20beloved%20pets.

American Indian Law Journal - Seattle University, digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=ailj. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023. 

Bennet, M. ‘Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au’ RADIO. New Zealand, March 17, 2017.

Butler, Sequoia. “I am the River, the River is me” - How Environmental Personhood can Protect Tribal Food Systems, University of Wisconsin Law School, https://wilj.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1270/2021/01/38.1_79-108_Butler.pdf 

Challe, T., April, et al. “The Rights of Nature - Can an Ecosystem Bear Legal Rights?” State of the Planet, Columbia Climate Law, 23 Apr. 2021, news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/04/22/rights-of-nature-lawsuits/. 

Concord Law School. “Corporate Personhood: What It Means and How It Has Evolved.” Concord Law School, Purdue University Global, 6 Jan. 2023, www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-personhood/#:~:text=Because%20corporations%20have%20a%20separate,and%20helps%20drive%20economic%20growth. 

Denchak, Melissa. “Flint Water Crisis: Everything You Need to Know.” Be a Force for the Future, 8 Nov. 2018, www.nrdc.org/stories/flint-water-crisis-everything-you-need-know#summary.

Drewes Farms P'ship v. City of Toledo, 441 F. Supp. 3d 551 (N.D. Ohio 2020)

Fendt, Lindsay. “Colorado River ‘personhood’ Case Pulled by Proponents.” Aspen Journalism, 19 Feb. 2021, aspenjournalism.org/colorado-river-personhood-case-pulled-by-proponents/.

“Flint’s Toxic Industrial Legacy.” Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 3 Oct. 2022, www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/flints-toxic-industrial-legacy.

“Food, Fuel, and Materials .” EnviroAtlas, US Environmental Protection Agency, 15 Nov. 2023, www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-benefit-category-food-fuel-and-materials.

“General Motors Net Worth 2010-2023: GM.” Macrotrends, www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GM/general-motors/net-worth#:~:text=How%20much%20a%20company%20is,03%2C%202023%20is%20%2440.77B. Accessed 18 Nov. 2023.

Guggenheim, Martin. General Overview of Child Protection Laws in the United States, www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba-cms-dotorg/products/inv/book/224751148/Excerpt%20from%20Chapter%201. pdf. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023. 

Kaimowitz, David, and Douglas Sheil. “Conserving What and for Whom? Why Conservation ...” Wiley Online Library, 15 June 2007, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00332.x. 

“Lead Poisoning.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health#:~:text=At%20high%20levels%20of%20exposure,intellectual%20disability%20and%20behavioural%20disorders. Accessed 18 Nov. 2023.

Marder, Michael. “Should Plants Have Rights?” Should Plants Have Rights?, 2 Feb. 2023, www.e-flux.com/notes/515662/should-plants-have-rights.

Marino, Lori. “Why Nonhuman Beings Should Be Granted Personhood Rights: Aeon Essays.” Aeon, 16 Sept. 2022, aeon.co/essays/why-nonhuman-beings-should-be-granted-personhood-rights.

McKeown, Margaret. “The trees are still standing: The backstory of Sierra Club v. Morton.” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 44, no. 2, 2019, pp. 189–214, https://doi.org/10.1353/sch.2019.0013.

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES v. WHITE EARTH BAND OF OJIBWE, No. 21-cv-1869 (WMW/LIB) (D. Minn. Sept. 3, 2021).

Montes Franceschini, Macarena. “Traditional Conceptions of the Legal Person and Nonhuman Animals.” Animals : An Open Access Journal from MDPI, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 28 Sept. 2022, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9558555/. 

“Native American Lands: Ownership and Governance.” Native American Lands | Ownership and Governance | Natural Resources Revenue Data, US Dept of Interior, revenuedata.doi.gov/how-revenue-works/native-american-ownership-governance/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

O’Donnell, Erin. (2020) Rivers as living beings: rights in law, but no rights to water?, Griffith Law Review, 29:4, 643-668, DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1881304 

Pellerin, Catherine. “Constitutional Considerations of Happiness.” Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, 16 Feb. 2016, blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/culr/2016/02/16/constitutional-considerations-of-happiness/.

“Press Release: Federal Appeals Court Denies State of Minnesota’s Bid to Take ‘rights of Nature’ Case Away from Tribal Court.” Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights, Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights, 27 Jan. 2022, www.centerforenvironmentalrights.org/news/press-release-federal-appeals-court-denies-state-of-minnesotas-bid-to-take-rights-of-nature-case-away-from-tribal-court. 

Price, Anna. “Indigenous Law Research Strategies: Settlement Acts: In Custodia Legis.” The Library of Congress, 31 Aug. 2021, blogs.loc.gov/law/2021/08/indigenous-law-research-strategies-settlement-acts/. 

Purdue Global Law School, “Corporate Personhood: What It Means and How It Has Evolved.” Online Law School, Purdue Global , www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-personhood. Accessed 15 Nov. 2023.

“Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ Land Interests Is Critical for People and Nature.” WWF, World Wildlife Fund, 22 Oct. 2020, www.worldwildlife.org/stories/recognizing-indigenous-peoples-land-interests-is-critical-for-people-and-nature#:~:text=Although%20they%20comprise%20less%20than,they%20have%20lived%20for%20centuries.

Reed, Betsy. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 10 July 2017, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change. 

Rowland-Shea, Jenny, et al. “The Nature Gap.” Center for American Progress, 21 July 2020, www.americanprogress.org/article/the-nature-gap/.

Schlosser, Thomas P. (2023) "Case Law on American Indians," American Indian Law Journal: Vol. 11: Iss. 2, Article 3. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj/vol11/iss2/3.

Schmiesing, Megan, "Rights, Water, and Guardians: How Rights of Nature Movements are Reshaping our Current Environmental Ethics and What These Policies Need to be Successful" (2020). Pitzer Senior Theses. 108. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=pitzer_theses.

Shakya, S. R., et al. “Energy Equity as a Major Driver of Energy Intensity in South Asia.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Pergamon, 22 Oct. 2022, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122008759.

Seielstad, Andrea. “How ‘friendly Whites’ Used Conservatorships to Exploit, Swindle Native Americans: Opinion – Pennsylvania Capital.” Pennsylvania Capital-Star , Pennsylvania Capital-Star , 16 Aug. 2021, www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/how-friendly-whites-used-conservatorships-to-exploit-swindle-native-americans-opinion/. 

"Sierra Club v. Morton." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-34. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

Spelliscy, Ciara. “Does ‘We the People’ Include Corporations?” ABA, American Bar Association, 2023, www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/we-the-people/we-the-people-corporations/.

Stein, B. A., N. Edelson, L. Anderson, J. Kanter, and J. Stemler. 2018. Reversing America’s Wildlife Crisis: Securing the Future of Our Fish and Wildlife. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. 19 Nov 2023.

“Tribe Gives Personhood to Klamath River.” Weekend Edition Sunday, performance by Lulu Garcia-Navaro, NPR, 29 Sept. 2019.

“Tribes Approved for Treatment as a State (TAS) | US EPA.” United States Environmental Protection Agency, US EPA, 14 Aug. 2023, www.epa.gov/tribal/tribes-approved-treatment-state-tas. 

Venditti, Bruno, and Alan Kennedy. “Visualizing U.S. Consumption of Fuel and Materials per Capita.” Visual Capitalist, Elements, 27 Jan. 2023, www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-u-s-consumption-of-fuel-and-materials-per-capita/ .

Winkler, Adam. “How American Corporations Used Courts to Avoid Government Regulation.” ProMarket, 11 Oct. 2021, www.promarket.org/2021/02/12/corporations-supereme-court-constitution-avoid-regulation/.